P L D 1961 W P (Rev (PLP)
BADAR DIN‑Petitioner Versus SARDAR ALI‑‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1961 W P (Rev (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | M. Z. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, |
| Parties | BADAR DIN‑Petitioner Versus SARDAR ALI‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1961 W P (Rev (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1961 W P (Rev (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: M. Z. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1961 W P (Rev (PLP) (BADAR DIN‑Petitioner Versus SARDAR ALI‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Dr. Javed Iqbal for Petitioner.
- Hasan Akhtar for Muhammad Siddiq and Muhammad Hasan for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Lambardar‑Appointment‑Small difference between strength of Rajputs and Jats in Patti‑Rajput appointed Lambardar in one Patti Jat may be appointed in other Patti.
Judgment & Decree
Dr. Javed Iqbal for Petitioner. Hasan Akhtar for Muhammad Siddiq and Muhammad Hasan for Respondent. These two petitions‑R.O.R. No. 320 of 1958‑59, (Badar Din v. Sardar Ali) and R.O.R. No. 23 of 1959‑60, (Muhammad Siddiq v. Sardar Ali)‑may be taken up together as they relate to the same order. Respondent Sardar Ali is 80 years of age. He is a Rajput, which is the second numerically strong tribe in the Patti. He filed a petition that owing to his age and defective sight, he was not in a position to perform the duties of a Lambardar and so a Sarbrah may be appointed. In R. O. R. No. 99 of 1957‑58, (Rehamat Khan v. Abdul Rehman) it was held that the appointment of a Sarbrah is not intended for such cases. The respondent has no property in Patti Sant Singh in which he has been appointed. In the circumstances of the case, I do not find adequate justification for readjusting the Patties in order that the land of the respondent might fall in the Patti in question. In view of what is stated above, there was no reasonable ground for appointing Sardar Ali as Lambardar. Muhammad Siddiq has 18 acres of land in the Patti and 13 acres elsewhere. He is a Rajput. Badar Din has 8'1 acres of land in the Patti and acres elsewhere. His land is adequate as security for the Government demand. It was alleged that on account of the part he played in a Sessions case his pachotara was forfeited by the Collector. A certified copy of the order was filed. This was countered by Badar Din with the observation that an appeal was filed against that order and the Commissioner pachotara was set aside. The difference between the strength of the Rajputs and Jats in this Patti is small. A Rajput has already been appointed in another Patti of the Chak. Rajputs are the second largest tribe in this Patti. Under these circumstances the claim of a Jat to appointment in this Patti is stronger because considering their strength in the Patti they should not be left altogether un represented, especially when a suitable candidate from that community is available. The result is that the petition of Muhammad Siddiq is reject ed, while that of Badar Din is allowed and he is appointed as Lambardar in place of Sardar Ali. K. M. A. Revision accepted.